I have
always found it rather ironically amusing that many historians critical of the
Catholic Church find something disreputable in the proclamation of papal
infallibility by the First Vatican Council and the discussions and preparations
preceding it. Obviously these historians wish this proclamation had never
happened and would like to blame those responsible; but in fact the truth of the
doctrine of papal infallibility is historically incontrovertible (no natural
explanation can account for some 270 Popes never disagreeing with one another in
"ex cathedra" statements for 2,000 years, and there are several
extraordinary cases of Popes who seemed about to violate infallibility and at
the last minute were mysteriously held back from doing so—notably Popes
Liberius and Vigilius, in the fourth and sixth centuries, respectively). It
should also now be clear that with the Western world moving into an age when
"all" intellectual as well as spiritual authority was challenged,
where relativism and even fundamental skepticism were to become virtual
intellectual norms, not only the sovereignty of truth but its doctrinal locus in
the Popes had to be proclaimed.

Pope Pius IX did make extensive efforts before the First Vatican Council to
ensure that it would confirm papal infallibility. Strictly speaking, it did not
need to do so; the Pope has full authority to proclaim this or any other truth
about the Catholic Faith and the Church by himself. But especially in the case
of this unique charism given to Popes, he naturally saw it as better for it to
be formally proclaimed by an ecumenical council. Since councils are not
infallible and are often swayed by petty and even base motives, these advance
efforts were both necessary and commendable. They can be made to look bad only
by writers and readers who do not really understand who the Pope is.

In the end the fathers of the First Vatican council fully realized these
truths themselves. The final vote on the schema proclaiming papal infallibility
was 533-2. (A curious footnote to history is the fact that one of the two
dissenters was the Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas!) Cardinal Newman, who
originally argued against the prudence of the declaration, though never against
the doctrine itself) was eventually persuaded of its wisdom.

Ludwig Hertling, Philip Hughes, Martin Harney, and Henri Daniel-Rops are all
excellent authorities in this matter, and none have been superseded. E. E. Y.
Hales' biography of Pope Pius IX, "Pio Nono", though sometimes lacking
in due respect for him and certainly not uncritical, essentially comes to the
same conclusions as they, though I understand Hales changed many of his views
for the worse since his biography was published some thirty years ago.